Okay again I ignore completely all the posts around and try to get the point: Where do you have this claim from? Because I am very interested. I am in some sense a very sexual person (straight btw) and like to know why some persons seem to be not sexual? Just out of curiosity

I tried to find the source of this claim. I remember it quite well but I can't find it anymore. I have to say that I was very quick to say "one in ten". That's what I read once. But I shouldn't take these sociological studies so seriously. I found another study that said one in a hundred people. So it's somewhere in between those.
Why they aren't sexual? Well, the problem with these definitions is that they are often ambiguous and that the condition described can be the result of many different things. For example celibate clerics are not asexual. Frigid people or people that have experienced sexual abuse are not asexual.
Another problem is that there is no academic definition of asexuality. Strangely enough these people are now getting the same problems gay people used to have. People tell them they are 'sick' or that it's just their choice instead of accepting that it is an orientation. Maybe in some cases it is. But since we have so much variation in sexual preference and also gender identity it is only natural that asexuality is also an orientation on can expect.
Things aren't so black and white.
If people go in hunger strike their sexuality stops functioning while the body is starving. It is experienced as a liberation by many people.
Also, a study has shown that asexual people are more religious than people in general. Paul, for example, promoted having no sex at all though not many Christians follow this teaching of the bible.
But at the same time asexuality must be an abomination according to many Abrahamic monotheists.
You are one of those Christians that keeps sabbath on Saturday? Yes, I do consider that to be closer to the bible. But what does it matter.
In my country, where Christianity is dying, Christian politicians are trying to disallow everyone to shop on the eight day. That just makes no sense in a hundred ways.
It's a safe presumption to assume that a Christian keeps sabbath at Sunday.
Jesus said he would return within the lives of the people he spoke to, according to the bible. And since the gospels were written such a long time after Jesus's his presumed death back then, 1900 years ago, it was just around the corner.
It didn't happen. And it will not happen. If you truly believe the bible you need to believe that Jesus did actually return 1900 years ago or that Jesus is a false prophet that should be killed.
There is no way around it.
Would you still believe in Christ's second comming if after another 2000 years he still hadn't returned?